You'll certainly find what you're looking for quicker than Palm Beach County's Election Supervisor has been able to find a law enforcement official in Florida willing to bring charges against the powerful Republican, despite the dead-to-rights evidence against her.

Color us stunned that George W. Bush's U.S. Attorney down there hasn't found fit to bring a case, since we all know how eager they were to send Democrats to jail (or even deport them) for such things --- even when the "crime" was accidentally committed...unlike the clearly purposeful and fraudulent efforts of Coulter.

Ms. Prude, a mother and a black woman on probation for a bad check in Milwaukee, sent in an absentee ballot.
Ms. Prude testified that she believed that she was permitted to vote because she was not in jail or on parole. She has since served a year in jail for violating probation by casting her vote.
But Ann Coulter is above the law that gets dished out to Ms. Prude.
Where is justice? Let Ms. Prude out of jail NOW.

There was such a large and continuing republican conviction rate that they had to do something, even if it meant phony prosecutions, to make it appear "that every party commits crimes" ... whatever that is supposed to add to the story.

The fact of the matter is that of federal felony convictions during the 109th congress was won hands down by republicans. Their prominent lead promises to perpetuate thru the 110th congress as well. Eat your hearts out dems ...

I wish it were true that the U.S. Attorney could investigate Ann Coulter for vote fraud. Unfortunately, the Help America Vote Act is subject to the jurisdictional limits of the Voting Rights Act; the federal government can investigate vote fraud only in federal elections, that is, those elections for President, Vice-President, or a member of Congress. Ms. Coulter allegedly (and I say allegedly not because I think she didn't do it, but because there has been no trial) committed her vote fraud in a city council election.

That said, I suppose that there would be nothing stopping Alex Acosta from at least conducting an investigation, even if the result was that he could do nothing about it. But, Alex Acosta is one of those U.S. Attorneys who appeared on Monica Goodling's list of qualifications that had a "yes" in the Federalist Society column. I would say he is a very safe "loyal Bushie."

I'm sorry, I don't speak Gibberish, so I am having a little trouble understanding your post.

I am not proposing any law at all.

The federal statute on voter fraud reads as follows:

Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both: Provided, however, That this provision shall be applicable only to general, special, or primary elections held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

42 U.S.C. 1973i(c)

I believe there could have been ways that Congress could have created jurisdiction over the election which is the subject of Ms. Coulter's alleged fraud. For example, if she voted on new machines for which Congress provided the money under HAVA, jurisdiction could be based on Congress' spending power. U.S. Const., Art. I, sec 8, cl. 1. Or, Congress could have declared that it was regulating the interstate commerce in voting machines. U.S. Const., Art. I sec 8 cl. 3. The commerce power argument would be much more difficult to make in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

In any case, Congress specifically decided not to do that, and limited the reach of the federal voter fraud criminal statute.

There is nothing, however, that would prevent Ms. Coulter from being prosecuted under Florida law, except, as Brad has pointed out, the apparent unwillingness of any state or local prosecutorial authority to convene a grand jury or file a criminal information. The U.S. Attorney cannot prosecute her solely for violating a state statute.

I believe that Ms. Coulter could be investigated by the New York Bar, for unethical conduct even if she has not been convicted. If she were found to have engaged in misconduct that reflects negatively on her fitness to practice law (N.Y.C.R.R. 1200.3), she could face some sort of suspension of her licence to practice law, but I doubt she would be disbarred in the absence of a conviction. In any case, the NY Bar is unlikely to do so unless a NY Bar member or citizen of New York filed a complaint.

GreggP - It was. But no personal attacks on other commenters (unless they're public figures) even from our friend Dredd.

Quick note, however, in reply to your theory that Fed charges couldn't be brought. I think they could. In fact, if you comb this must-read NYTimes piece, you'll see that they were brought in many such cases just based on the fraudulent voter registration.

Her registration was, theoretically, based on the intent to vote in a federal election. As well, she was also registered in CT at the same time, so now you're crossing state borders. While that would normally not be something that functional DoJ's would concern themselves with, it's definitely something that this DoJ has spent quite a bit of time on!

I'm sorry, I'm not upgrading to Times Select, or paying $4.95. I'll have to go read the print version tomorrow.

I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this for the time being. However, I wlll wager that if you examine each of the cases cited, you will find that in every instance, the next scheduled election included a federal office, which would confer jurisdiction. In that case, I would agree that simply registering would then be a violation of the federal statute, because the prosecution could validly make the argument that the registrant would have logically registered intending to vote in the next election.

Here though, if I have the timeline right, Ms. Coulter registered some time in December 2005, and the next election was the special election in February. If the logical inference is that the person registered to vote in the next election, then defense would use that same inference to say that Ms. Coulter registered in order to vote for the City Council.

Further, if I were crafting this defense, I would argue that such an inference is quite reasonable; since she just moved to this new locality, she would be acutely interested in local affairs.

Moreover, it is my understanding the Supervisor of Elections suspended Ms. Coulter's voting privilege in Palm Beach County prior to the next election, in which case I would argue that any extension to that election would be subject to a defense of legal impossibility.

Also, each case has many facets that may not be adequately explained by newspaper reporting. Specifically, the quality of the legal representation one receives is subject to a number of factors, notably the amount of money that is spent on it. Even a really good lawyer can be overwhelmed by the opponent with greater resources. Case in point: U.S. v. Thompson, in which a state official and close associate of the Governor of Wisconsin was convicted and sent to prison just before the last election. When her case came up on appeal, the 7th Circuit panel, in an almost unprecedented act, ordered her released immediately after oral argument. I find it hard to believe Ms. Thompson had an empty suit with a law degree representing her, yet the result still obtained and it took an appeal to straighten it out. Those people convicted of voter fraud may not have had the resources to mount a vigorous defense and raise the jurisdictional issue.

What I am saying is that people are wrongfully convicted and acquitted all the time. When the defendant is someone like Ms. Coulter, I would expect she would have the most skilled counsel money can buy, and that even if she couldn't pay the bills herself, there would be others who would pony up, whatever the cost. In such a case, the odds would be more favorable to her than the typical defendant.

I'm sorry, I'm not upgrading to Times Select, or paying $4.95. I'll have to go read the print version tomorrow.

It's not behind the firewall. Should be free (unless it's been archived by now), though might require a one-time free signup with Times online. It's well worth it, just to read that article!

Moreover, it is my understanding the Supervisor of Elections suspended Ms. Coulter's voting privilege in Palm Beach County prior to the next election, in which case I would argue that any extension to that election would be subject to a defense of legal impossibility.

If he did, that would be news to me. He was threatening same, but never did it as far as I know.

What I am saying is that people are wrongfully convicted and acquitted all the time. When the defendant is someone like Ms. Coulter, I would expect she would have the most skilled counsel money can buy, and that even if she couldn't pay the bills herself, there would be others who would pony up, whatever the cost. In such a case, the odds would be more favorable to her than the typical defendant.

Of course people are wrongfully convicted. And wrongfully acquitted as well. Coulter has hired top gun legal representation (a Loyal Bushie former U.S. Attorney and FL 2000 vote count stopper).

Not sure what any of that has to do, however, with the fact that she clearly broke the law, and committed at least 2 third-degree felonies and one 1st degree misdemeanor.

Frankly, I don't care who prosecutes it. As long as someone does, since it's clear as day that she broke the RULE OF LAW.

I'm not disagreeing with you as to Ms. Coulter's breaking the law; I think she did too. However, I think she broke the Florida state law.

Politically, it makes no difference. Legally (which is the perspective from which I approach this question) it makes a lot of difference.

Let me provide an example. Robbery is a felony, but it is generally a state crime, prosecuted by the appropriate state authority. Bank robbery, however, can be a federal crime, if the bank that is robbed has Federal Deposit Insurance. A federal prosecutor can prosecute someone who robs a bank in California under the federal law, but generally cannot prosecute that same person for robbing a market or a dry cleaner, unless there were some basis for federal jurisdiction. If the dry cleaner was at the Navy Post Exchange, and therefore on U.S. Government property, the U.S. Attorney would have jurisdiction under Congress' property power.

As to your point about the suspension, I think it might be germaine to the issue to find out whether (1) Ms. Coulter's franchise in Florida is suspended, and (2) whether she has in fact voted in a federal election. Should the answer to #2 be yes, I may be fully on board with you as to her criminal culpability under the federal Voting Rights Act.

I can get only the synopsis on the Times website; I think the article has been archived. As soon as I edit this last student brief, I will go read the article.

She remains untouched and may never be prosecuted since she is an elite ("the queen can do no wrong"), by either federal or state authorities, but:

Jerry Miller was 22 years old when he was arrested and charged with a brutal rape, robbery and kidnapping. He was convicted and sentenced to 45 years in prison. Today, 26 years later, Jerry Miller will be exonerated because DNA testing proves what he said all along - that he is innocent.

Jerry is 48 years old now. He has lost virtually his entire adult life to a wrongful conviction. And he is the 200th person in the United States who has been exonerated through DNA evidence.